MickyB

Pass and pass.

Me too, assuming it is your weaker way to reach 5♦ (weaker than 4NT pulling 5♣ to 5♦)

If declarer made fewer tricks due to the explanation, I would expect the Polish player to be ruled against. He is playing in a country where "2nd and 4th" means 2nd from bad suits, 4th from good suits; there is no chance that a Brit, playing in an English event, would consider that it might mean anything else, whereas the Pole should quickly realise that the term means something different over here. Why should the poor English player get a bad score because of an (arguably misleading) terminology introduced long before he started playing?

Matt, it might be worth mentioning that the double was for takeout.

What excellent points? Presumably relating to the wrong-siding 3NT - the opening lead is through the honours in dummy and, after the opening lead (an ace if you have one), defence is almost double-dummy.

Free - I would agree entirely if the opening bid had not denied 4 hearts :)

I am wondering about using the following responses to a 5+ card, wide-ranging 1♠ opening - 1NT = semi-forcing 2♣ = natural or balanced, GF (balanced/semi-balanced hands will relay out shape) 2♦ = constructive+ with 5+♥ 2♥ = 5+♦, GF I've got good structures for the 2♣ and 2♦ responses, but I'm not sure about the 2♥ response. Any advice on continuations? The only top pair who I know to use this structure are Bocchi-Duboin, who also include single-suited invites in the 2♥ response. Their rebids for opener are - 2♠ = 2-suited without 4♦ 2NT = 1-suited without 3♦ 3♣ = 4+♦ 3♦ = 10+ cards in ♠+♦ 3♥ = Balanced with 3♦ 3♠ = 1-suited with 3♦, 11-14 3N = 1-suited with 3♦, 15+ The alternative is to put all hands with a primary minor suit into the 2♣ response, and use 2♥ as a 3 card limit+ raise, but that makes the structure after 2♣ a lot more complicated (IMO you need the ability to break the relays when responder is unbalanced). Thanks

The other day, when playing online, I described our leads as 2nd+4th, leaving declarer surprised when my partner had led small from Kxx. In the UK, standard leads are 4th highest from a suit with an honour in and 2nd highest from a suit without an honour (some count the ten as an honour, others do not) which is what would be understood by "2nd+4th". I believe that the Poles also describe their leads as "2nd+4th", but lead 2nd highest from Kxx. Are there any other differences? What does the term mean in other countries? Leading 2nd highest from Kxx seems more in keeping with the name, so I suspect those playing the English style should be careful with their descriptions. Similarly, 3rd+5th is better described as "3rd+low" (3rd from an even number, low from an odd number) because the lead from 6 cards is 3rd highest.

I don't think RHO has psyched, vul against not, to keep a passed hand out of the auction. I think RHO is likely to be bidding partly based on a fit, and that we are likely to have a cheap save or possibly even a double game swing - give them 7 club tricks and 2 aces.

I preempted three times in the set of seven boards. Probably the most interesting one was this - [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sqxhkqtxxxxxdkcqx]133|100|Scoring: MP I figured that 4♥ was a fair distance away, my side cards would take off the opponents' contract and that they wouldn't be able to compete effectively over a 3♥ opening without a penalty double available, so that was what I bid. As it happened, both 4♥ and 5♣ were making (partner has 2 aces, 3 hearts and a stiff club) [/hv]

Thanks Frances, I've changed the vul above. Yes, I knew it was you and Jeffery, but I didn't know which way around you were sitting. Your thoughts are pretty much along the lines of mine, but I found it difficult to evaluate how often it would run into RHO holding a (misfitting) monster. 3NT made at my table when I led a diamond (maybe this should have been a lead problem as well).

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sajxxhqtxxdqjxxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-(3♣)-P-(3NT) I briefly considered doubling then passed, but later heard that a good player had doubled on this auction. What do you think?[/hv]

Yesterday, Blofeld and I came across a pair who were playing penalty doubles of all overcalls and 3 level openings. How would it change your strategy? This was at matchpoints, do you think the considerations are different at IMPs?

1♥ seems totally obvious to me. I really don't expect it to get passed out, and I think I am better placed after bidding 1♥ than doubling. Maybe I am taking this view because I've seen the 4♠ bids that I have made opposite takeout doubles.

Acol - he does what he feels like until he feels like stopping, and is too aggressive at the wrong times.

Siege's 1♣ opening is just short, it isn't multi-way or forcing. I think I've talked too much about Siege recently so I'll try not to mention it for a few hours.

In a recent event we were given 1hr45 for 12 board rounds, and came under a *lot* of time pressure a couple of times - but then I play slowly, my partner played slower, and the opps weren't exactly quick either :unsure:

I agree, but if I remember correctly BBO policy does not - leaving, even when dummy, is recorded, and if you do it too frequently you will be suspended from BBO.

Love all at matchpoints, you want to do anything reasonable to have your side play the contract. Despite the non-fit auction, I would certainly protect on "nothing", particularly if it had a bit of shape but didn't qualify as a WJO in this partnership.

I disagree on your 3rd point, Ben. The auction couldn't start with a 2♥ opening because 2♥ meant something else for this pair. I think the normal ruling in the first instance is to give Av+/Av- unless the table result was more favourable for the NOS.

Double - Pens. May or may not have been a penalty pass of 1S. 2S - Some kind of artificial force. 2N - minors 3H - Not a clue.

That makes a lot of sense, David. In the same way that having strong bal and strong unbal hands in the same bid overloads a double in competitive auctions, having weak bal and weak unbal hands in the same bid overloads a pass. Btw, I think Siege sometimes gets around the problems of an ill-defined double - by never opening 1♣ with a minor 2 suiter, some doubles obviously cannot be pure takeout, hence are just defined as "values" - usually balanced.

Don't know, haven't actually worked this bit out yet ;) Can't be too hard though - natural continuations, with 2♠ and 2♥ showing minima with and without 4 spades, 3♦ a 4306, others natural and GF would work.

More to it than that I think, Ken. If declarer does play a 3rd round of spades throwing a heart from dummy, he might still take 4 hearts, 3 spades, 1 diamond and 1 club. Edit: My answer -

Were some of those votes for "yes" really votes for "yesnoyes"?